Think "Deep Impact" Meets "Wall Street"...

At this writing, the "parties involved" are "very close" to ending this "The Hatfields and McCoys Go To Washington" cluster f**k.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/31/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Assuming the wheels don't come off the wagon, we will all live to live beyond our means another day.

And, as predicted by any number of pundits, prophets, poseurs and/or pretenders, the Great Default of 2011 will be narrowly averted in the nick of time.

Before the "open the bubbly" app gets activated, though, allow me to offer this observation.

Come November 2012, each and every member of the cast of this doomsday thriller, regardless of their geo-political location left or right of the center line,needs to be held, not in esteem or appreciation, but, accountable for their behavior over the past few weeks.

The fact that they managed (decided) to steer the bus away from the edge of the crevice at the very last second shouldn't exonerate them from scaring the bejesus out of the masses with no more of a true agenda than their patented brand of bitch-slapping each other around the Beltway.

Fair being fair, gotta admit that, as thrillers go, this one has been a real edge of the seat production.

And, by way of returning the favor, I think we ought to produce a little "be in fear of your lives" offering for anybody with a Rep., Sen. or Pres. in front of their name.

Coming to a ballot box near you.

November 2012.

"..If We Ever Decide To Change the National Anthem....."

Today's trenchant political/philosophical observation comes from an unlikely source.

Joe South.

Who?

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_South

And the previously promised perspective?

"oh, the games people play now / every night and every day now / never saying what they mean now / never meaning what they say.."

In 1964, Bud Wilkinson, who had been a football star and, eventually, a winning coach at the University of Oklahoma, ran for the U.S. Senate.

His campaign slogan was "Put the best man in the game."

His opponent, taking full advantage of the post Cuban missile crisis/cold war anxiety of the day replied at every opportunity that "the future of the world is no game".

Wilkinson lost.

Fast forward forty seven years to the "teachers helping kids pass tests by cheating" scandal that has been in the news of late.

Here's a plot thickener I came across.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/philadelphia-english-teacher-explains-why-she-helped-students-160244016.html

Admittedly, anyone who prides themselves on any sense of fair play and/or honor is shocked, shocked, I tell you, at the mere hint of condoning children end running the rules, let alone showing them how.

But a little between the lines reading brings to light what has to be a rock and hard place frustration on the part of teachers in the current climate.

It actually is whether you win or lose and not how you play the game.

Keep an ear cocked, in this coming political year, for the term "values".

You're going to hear it a lot.

Core values.

Family values.

Ad nauseum.

And every time you hear it, do a quick Google and see if you can determine where he or she who is speaking it stood in the whole "debt ceiling held hostage game" of 2011.

Because this whole sad, sorry mess has been entirely about who wins or loses.

And not how the game was played.

Sportsmanship usurped by brinksmanship.

And the end justifying the means.

Allowances for moral argument aside, is it fair to castigate sincere and well intended educators caught in a causality loop of damned if you do, unfunded and/or unemployed if you don't while not holding governmental feet to the philosophical fire for making the win, the whole win and nothing but the win the end game?

Bud's opponent, it turns out, was inadvertently prophetic.

The future of the world is, in fact, no game.

Sadly, that doesn't seem to stop the Capitol Hill Gang that Can't Shoot Straight from playing it.

As for the teachers?

Joe South has an observation on that, too.

Walk a mile in my shoes.

"The Political Landscape as Interpreted By Officer Krupke"

Pop quiz.

Name three influential political minds.

Try these.

Thomas Jefferson.

Immanuel Kant.

Thomas Paine.

Here's a "get one free" for you.

Stephen Sondheim.

Well, in fairness, the team of Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein because, as the song goes, "you can't have one without the other."

More on that in a minute.

The method behind my madness of including one of musical theater's most gifted collaborative duos in the listing isn't as cryptic as you might think.

Allow me to elucidate.

(There's your word for today, kids. Look it up. No reason to risk illiteracy just because summer vacation has you on educational furlough.)

Depending on what you see, hear and/or read at any given time these last few days, we are either:

• About to suffer a cataclysmic international financial crisis due to criminally negligent posturing by the Democratic Party.
• About to suffer a cataclysmic international financial crisis due to criminally negligent posturing by the Republican Party.
• About to suffer a cataclysmic international financial crisis due to criminally negligent interference in the already criminally negligent two party process by the self proclaimed extreme right wingers in disguise who call themselves the Tea Party
• About to awake sometime between now and mid week next week to find that some half baked, half assed quick fix solution has been agreed upon just in the nick of time to prevent the aforementioned cataclysmic international financial crisis, in which case, of course, both major, and all minor, players in any and/or all parties will simultaneously take credit for their own contribution and place blame for the other guys obstinance.

Those of us who don't really understand all the nuances of living the life political will find ourselves, once again, faced with a myriad of choices regarding who to believe and how much.

Whole lotta spin going on.

And since the wonderful world of blogging has afforded "civilians" in the political wars, such as myself, the opportunity to add two cents (actually nine cents, adjusted for inflation), indulge me, if you will, as I contribute a few coins from my own perspective pocket.

The "debt ceiling" has been raised, without any serious brouhaha, dozens of times over the last fifty years, give or take.

Nobody in their right mind would be a party to allowing the United States of America to default on its debt and trigger any form of the aforementioned cataclysmic financial crisis. And while many politicians rightly deserve to be pilloried for their failure to look after our own interests as opposed to their own, a reasonable case can be made that most are in their right mind.

Some sort of "last minute save" is as inevitable as another Jesse James engagement announcement.

So the question that begs to be asked is...what's really going on here?

Here's a thought.

It's a pissing contest disguised as patriotism.

The Repubs supposedly want to save the Republic from the Dems, the Dems supposedlyb want to save the Republic from the Repubs and the Tea Party just wants to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray.

Nope.

It's nothing more than a very high stakes game of chicken being played out between the three gangs that pretty much spend most of their time pushing and shoving over who will rule the neighborhood.

Okay, two and a half gangs depending on how much street cred you give the Tea Party at this juncture.

Sharks.

Jets.

(Personally, I tag the Tees as the extreme right wing of the Sharks. Or Jets. Whatever)

And while all the "pin headed patriots" who make up the Congress (a right angled head nod to Bill O'Reilly, there) would love for us all to believe that they are out there fighting for us all ("us all" being defined as that most mystical of social demographics, "the American people"), I would offer you that what's really going on here is nothing more, or less, than a garden variety turf war.

It's a rumble, baby....bring your clubs, bottles and brass knucks and meet in the House Chamber at midnight.

Save the Republic, my ass.

It's Riff and his posse versus Bernardo and his posse dancing and duking it out for top dog status.

While those of us who would just like to live safe and sane and serene in the neighborhood hope that we won't get injured or killed in the melee'.

Any one of the previously mentioned thinkers would likely have volumes of opinion and perspective to offer on the societal implications of this current political watershed moment.

Steve and Lenny, on the other hand, would likely be able to sum it up in a couple of minutes of poignant music and lyric.

Because, posing and posturing aside, the end result of any rumble is inevitably the same.

Innocent people get hurt.

Lives and property get damaged, sometimes irreparably.

And neither side wins anything.

We don't need another Thomas Jefferson or Immanuel Kant to tell us that.

Sondheim and Bernstein have got it covered.

"The Only Thing We Have To Fear....."

By any reasonable measure, the presidency of Barack Obama, at this writing, deserves no better than a grade of C.

That grade was determined by emulating the time honored fashion of knocking both the high and the low score off to find what passes for an honest rating.

In other words, that grade is less a designation of "average" as it is a finding the center line between those that still think he is a superstar and those who would like to send him packing back to his birthplace.

Kenya or Hawaii, your call.

If you will concede, if only for the sake of discussion, that C is fair, then let me run this past ya...

If the election were held today, I believe that he would be re-elected, if only by a thin margin.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with his accomplishments or lack thereof, as the case may be.

It has to do with the other guys are offering as alternative.

Another "evil" for us to choose the lesser of.

And, more insidiously, an invitation to subscribe to, and/or endorse, the politics of fear.

At this writing, Mitt Romney leads the field of prospective candidates.

But just like Ricky Bobby appearing in Jean Girard's rear view, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and  Texas Gov. Rick Perry are moving up on Mitt.

And, so far, it looks, and sounds, like both Bachmann and Perry are card carrying members of the "be afraid, be very afraid" school of political presentation.

• Both are expressly pro-hetero, and for all appearances, anti-homo, sexual, don't even get them started on gay marriage.
• Both are on record as believing there is no credible evidence to accept global warming is real, Bachmann, in fact, going so far as to call it a hoax.
• Perry endorsed a resolution calling for "state sovereignty" which many believe was a thinly veiled endorsement of the idea that Texas should secede from the Union.
• Bachmann has voted against financing higher education and lowering student loan interest rates, in one case, opposing a bill that was later signed by George W.

The list, as it does, obviously, for anyone and everyone, goes on.

Here's some reference resources for you to check out for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

No one, of any political persuasion, can deny that Joe and Jane Six Pack are tired of the same old, same old when it comes to American politics and, in tough economic times, that fatigue often manifests itself as outright resentment and/or hostility.

In the heat of that anger, the last thing people usually want to hear is platitudes and homilies about "the best parts of our humanity" or "how we can, together, realize the dream of a greater nation and world".

Yada, yada.

But, once cooler heads prevail (and inevitably they do or we wouldn't have made it this far, would we?), we all start looking for that person who is going to inspire us, motivate us, make us want to be better than we are and set the bar to a height that we will work to clear.

Motivation is born out of inspiration.

Not intimidation.

And the politics of fear is the politics that keeps injecting into our collective blood stream, the virus of intolerance and hatred and prejudice.

Not a campaign that lifts us back up to a place where we believe we can overcome challenges and obstacles together, but one that warns us of the dire consequences of not endorsing exclusion and separation.

A campaign that offers not "ask what you can do for your country' but one that warns "vote for me or pay the piper".

History is littered with the names of "leaders" who fear mongered their way to power.

And the end result has always been the same.

Barack Obama has, admittedly, not accomplished what fervent followers expected.

But I think if the choice had to be made today, a majority of voters would choose another dance with the devil they know.

Because, he has,to this point, not asked us to continue believing in him lest we realize our worst fears.

With the exception of Romney, that seems, so far, to be the strategy of the other leading Republican candidates.

And millions of Americans seem to be buying it.

Now that's scary.

"It Isn't So Much That We Don't Know WHAT It Is As It Is We Don't Know What To DO About It..."

Old saying.

"Dying is easy...comedy is hard."

New saying.

"Politics is easy...comedy is hard."

While thousands of hours and oceans of ink are used up by print, TV, radio and Internet sources bouncing a thousand badminton birdies of opinion and analysis back and forth across a thousand badminton nets separating the blue nation and the red nation, the essential premise of national politics as it is, and has always been, practiced in America is sufficiently simple as to be easily explainable to anyone.

In fact, it can be done in less steps than it takes to achieve six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

i.e...

1. Congress is made up of people we choose to spend the money we give them to run the country.
2. People who wish to be chosen for the job promise us they will do a better job spending the money than the people who already have the job.
3. We believe, or do not believe, either the current officeholder or the one promising to do a better job
4. Each four/six years, we make a choice as to who we believe.
5. Once chosen, the same(new) officeholder continues/begins to spend our money on their, and not our, interests.

Any questions?

Thought not.

"...Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly and Fat Albert....Sixes of One...."

Pop quiz.

Name the first insightful and perceptive political analyst that comes to mind.

Got yours?

Here's mine.

Bill Cosby.

Say what?

More on that in a minute.

Everybody's favorite dancing daughter showed up on Leno this week to provide an update on whazzup, 2012 plans wise, with the family Palin.

And like every good teenage single mom with no particular political education, training and/or resume' to provide as credentials, she wasn't a scosche shy about laying out her take on the lay of the presidential landscape.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/bristol-palin-mom-has-chance-at-presidency-despite-the-past/#more-167434

Putting aside any obvious observation that getting mature and sensible political perspective from Bristol Palin is like getting mature and sensible relationship perspective from Snooki, here's the "hidden" sticky wicket in this whole scenario.

The ever dissolving line between political and pop culture.

(OLD FART FOGEY ALERT....I am about to use one of those expressions like "was a time", "used to be", et al whose side effects on younger readers/voters might include damage to corneal tissue due to excessive eye rolling)

When I was a kid (you were warned), politicos didn't posture and pontificate on the popular playgrounds.

And pop stars didn't proselytize on matters political.

"Serious" news matters were left to serious news shows.

And "entertainment" celebrities stayed in their own yards.

Now, as we approach the 2012 election of a President of the United States, we have the aforementioned unwed, teenage single daughter attempting trenchant political insight to a former stand up comic turned variety talk show host sandwiched in somewhere amidst the classic comedy schtick of Don Rickles and the savvy song stylings of Colbie Caillet.

"..and tomorrow night....Roseanne drops by to talk about her wacky new reality show "Roseanne's Nuts" and shares her views on the debt ceiling debate.....!!"

Personally, I think Wolf Blitzer would make a wonderfully dry and droll guest host for Jay from time to time, but that's another blog.

Here's the bottom (or center, as the case may be) line.

The blurring of the lines between political commentary and pop culture conversation doesn't serve either entity particularly well and inevitably ends up watering down the quality of either/both.

And a generation of up and coming youth voters who are teething on politics as seen through the knocked up daughter raps with stand up comic viewfinder are just as inevitably going to groove the habit of forming opinions that could affect their, and their kids, lives based on what and who's cool and hip as opposed to what and who's insightful or, dare we dream, inspiring?

All of that said, I refer back to my earlier choice of Bill Cosby as a political pundit.

In one of his classic routines, he observes that it's a mistake to ever "challenge worse".

As in, don't ever say things can't get worse.

Because, as Mr. Cosby correctly observes, worse will take that statement and show you who wears the pants in the family.

So, while I'm comfortable with being in full "tsk-tsk" mode when it comes to ragging on Bristol gettin jiggy with Jay, I going to pull up just short of saying things can't get worse.

There's a whole lotta talk shows out there.

And Michele Bachmann has five kids.